1. Unregistered

    Unregistered Guest

    It's been suggested that since the Pentagon wants to put thousands of 'drones'(they leave out predator) over 'US'(NATO and Commonwealth) skies it's a reasonable assumption that due to the high cost of skilled pilots most chem-planes are indeed drones. Testing the theory might prove disasterous....
  2. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    Drones still require a pilot, and they are vastly more expensive that normal planes. There are no known tanker drones or large 747 type drones. The planes leaving trails have frequently been identified as normal planes.

    Anyway, you are putting the cart before the horse. Where's the evidence that chemtrails are anything other than persistent contrails?
  3. Billzilla

    Billzilla Senior Member

    Not really - You can easily program one these days to fly around completely autonomously, right from take-off to landing. And because they can be much smaller (no crew) they are often quite a lot cheaper than a regular aeroplane.

    But no, they aren't using them to spray anything into the atmosphere.
  4. Mick West

    Mick West Administrator Staff Member

    I was thinking of something large enough to spray long white lines in the sky. I don't think the no-crew difference would make a KC-135 much smaller.
  5. George B

    George B Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member Staff Member

    Remotely piloted vehicles of the payload needed for geoengineering missions would not be a great advantage over a human pilot . . . however, if one suspects other more nefarious missions . . . smaller aircraft and remote piloting would be of greater interest and efficiency . . .
  6. Billzilla

    Billzilla Senior Member

    Yeah agreed, no such aeroplanes around.
  7. TWCobra

    TWCobra Senior Member

    Remotely piloted vehicles exist to take pilots out of danger. They still require pilots however. There is no inherent danger in a mooted spray operation therefore taking the pilots out of the operation would be pointless because you still need them.

    Drones are not remotely piloted, hence the name. There would not be a lot of them due to their limited uses. They exist exist mainly to take the boredom out of long duration general surveillance missions or to get shot at. A large drone- anything larger or faster than a Predator size, pilotless, would be an accident going somewhere to happen. Large aircraft still require human input to safely fly, therefore there is no gain to be had by making them a "drone".

    There are no RPV's cureently known that have the payload to effectively spray anything...leaving aside the arguments about the efficiency of high altitude spraying.
  8. MikeC

    MikeC Senior Member

    I am not sure that the definitions are quite so clear cut as that - Wiki's disambiguation page about drones includes:



    ICAO terminology is currently "Unmaned Aircraft Systems" (500kb pdf)

Share This Page